N.Raja v. M.Rangaraj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:07.07.2008C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.M.A.No.2200 of 2002N.Raja... Appellant/ClaimantVs.1.M.Rangaraj2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore.(Notice to R1 is not necessary and no reliefis claimed against the first respondent)... Respondents/RespondentsPrayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act1988 against the award and decree dated 4.2.2002 made inM.C.O.P.No.287 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.3),Dharapuram.For Appellant: Mr.K.K.Anantha Padmanabhan For Mr.N.S.SivakumarFor 2nd Respondent: M/s.Rajnish PathiyilJUDGMENTThe unsuccessful petitioner before the Tribunal, whosepetition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wasdismissed, has come forward with this appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act.2.Alleging that the petitioner met with an accident on10.05.1998 at about 12.15 hours near Mani High School Bus Stop,Kuppusamy Naidu Hospital, Coimbatore City as the bus bearingRegistration No.TN 38 N 0565 belonging to the second respondentTransport Corporation hit the unregistered scooter in which thepetitioner was proceeding and that the appellant/petitionersustained grievous injuries leading to permanent disability andthe consequential loss of earning capacity, theappellant/petitioner made a claim of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the respondents herein in their capacities as the driver andowner of the above said offending vehicle. 3.The first respondent herein (driver) did not contest thecase and chose to remain exparte before the Tribunal. The secondrespondent Transport Corporation resisted the claim by statingthat the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 belonging tothe respondent Corporation, which was plied with Route No.41-D onthe date of alleged accident, did not meet with any accident onthe said date; that the appellant/petitioner having sustainedinjuries somehow or other chose to give a complaint with thePolice belatedly, informing them that the bus bearing Route No.40-A was the one which hit against him and that later on, after duedeliberation, his statement was changed to the effect that it wasthe vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 and Route No.41-Dwhich caused the accident. Based on the above said contentions,the second respondent Transport Corporation denied its liabilityto pay compensation to the appellant/petitioner. In addition tothe said contention and without prejudice to the said contention,the second respondent Transport Corporation also contended thatthe amount claimed as compensation was not reasonable but, highlyexcessive and exorbitant.4.In the trial that conducted based on the above said rivalcontentions, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 andeight documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 on the side of theappellant/petitioner. One witness was examined as R.W.1 and onedocument was marked as Ex.RW.1 on the side of the respondents.5.At the conclusion of trial, the Tribunal heard thearguments advanced on either side, considered the evidence broughtbefore it, in the light of the said arguments and came to theconclusion that the appellant/petitioner failed to prove that thebus bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 belonging to the secondrespondent was the vehicle which caused the accident on 10.05.1998at 12.15 hours in which the appellant/petitioner allegedlysustained the injuries. Based on the said finding, the Tribunaldismissed the claim petition in its entirety however, withoutcosts. 6.Aggrieved by and challenging the said Judgment and Award ofthe Tribunal dated 04.02.2002, the appellant herein has broughtforth this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on various grounds set outin the memorandum of appeal.7.This Court heard the submissions made by Mr.K.K.AnanthaPadmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant andMr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned counsel appearing for the secondrespondent. The materials available on record were also perused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.The appellant/petitioner had made a claim against therespondents herein in their capacities as driver and owner of thealleged offending vehicle viz., the Passenger Bus bearingRegistration No.TN 38 N 0565 with the contention that the said bushit the unregistered scooter in which the petitioner wasproceeding near Mani High School bus stop, Coimbatore City on10.05.1998 at about 12.15 p.m. According to theappellant's/petitioner's case, the scooter and the said bus wereproceeding in the opposite directions and the driver of the abovesaid bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and in anattempt to overtake another stationery bus at the bus stop, thesaid bus run over the scooterist namely, the appellant/petitioner. 9.The second respondent, owner of the offending vehicle,denied the very accident itself and contended that no suchaccident ever took place to the said vehicle of the secondrespondent bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565. When theinvolvement of the vehicle belonging to the second respondent inthe alleged accident is stoutly denied and disputed by the secondrespondent, it is for the appellant/ petitioner to prove the sameby adducing reliable evidence. In this regard, the Tribunalappraised the evidence adduced on either side both oral anddocumentary, and came to the conclusion that there was a shift inthe stand of the petitioner regarding the vehicle which allegedlyhit him while he was proceeding in the scooter and thus,disbelieved the case of the appellant/petitioner.10.Of course, besides examining himself as P.W.1, theappellant/petitioner has also examined one Penkar as an eyewitnessto the accident as P.W.3. Certified copies of the FirstInformation Report, Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, ChargeSheet and Wound Certificate have been marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4respectively. The other documents produced by the appellant/petitioner as Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8 are O.P. Chits, Medical Bills, x-ray and Disability Certificate. Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8 are not germanefor the consideration of the question as to whether the vehiclebearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 was the one which hit theappellant/ petitioner and caused the accident. In Ex.P.1-CertifiedCopy of the First Information Report, registration number of theoffending vehicle has not been furnished. On the other hand, routenumber alone has been furnished. As per the contents of Ex.P.1, itwas the bus belonging to the second respondent TransportCorporation with Route No.40-C that caused the accident inquestion. However, the bus belonging to the second respondentTransport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 wassubjected to the examination of the Motor Vehicles Inspector 9days later namely, on 09.06.1998. Nothing is there in the Motor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vehicles Inspector's Report to suggest that the said vehicleshould have involved in the accident in question. 11.Ex.P.3 is the Charge Sheet in which the first respondentherein was accused of committing not only the offences punishableunder Section 279 and 338 I.P.C. but also for an offence underSection 134 (A) and (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Simply becausethe first respondent has been prosecuted for the above saidoffences, we cannot come to the conclusion that the vehiclebelonging to the second respondent bearing Registration No.TN 38 N0565 was the one which caused the accident in question. Even inthe Wound Certificate there is nothing to suggest that the vehiclebearing a particular registration number or a particular routenumber hit the petitioner and caused the accident. On the otherhand, it has been stated that the appellant/petitioner was allegedto have sustained injuries as he dashed his two wheeler against abus. Even though the second respondent was prosecuted for theabove said offences, at the end, the criminal case ended inhonourable acquittal. Three different versions seem to have beenmade, based on which the first respondent was acquitted in thecriminal case. As per the FIR, the route number of the bus whichallegedly hit the appellant was given as 40-C whereas before theInvestigating agency statement was given to the effect that busbearing Route No.41-A was the one which caused the accident.However, in the evidence before the Tribunal it was deposed to theeffect that the bus bearing Route No.41-D was the one involved inthe accident. In view of the above said discrepancy alone, thecriminal case ended in acquittal.12.It is true that a Judgment of the Criminal Court not basedon any admission is a irrelevant and not admissible as a piece ofevidence in a civil case or in a motor accident claims petitionbefore the Tribunal, except to the limited purpose of showing thatthere was a prosecution which resulted in acquittal or conviction.The fact that the criminal prosecution ended in acquittal will notbe helpful to the appellant/petitioner to show that the vehiclebearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 was the one involved in theaccident. Though the First Information Report was prepared basedon the statement of the appellant/petitioner, when he was examinedas P.W.1 before the Tribunal, he carefully omitted to refer to theroute number of the bus involved in the accident in his chiefexamination and was content with furnishing the registrationnumber of the vehicle. However, during cross examination, hedenied having given a statement before the Police which formed thebasis of the FIR that the bus bearing Route No.40-A was thevehicle involved in the accident. The same will show that thepetitioner is capable of changing his version to suit hisconvenience. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13.Though the petitioner was taken to Coimbatore MedicalCollege Hospital which is at a distance of less than twokilometers immediately after the accident, there was an inordinatedelay in setting the the criminal law in motion by giving acomplaint to the Police. The accident took place at 12.15 hours on10.5.1998, but the case was registered at 22.00 hours on11.5.1998. Even in the complaint given to the Police after such adelay, the petitioner has given only the route number and not theregistration number. It is curious to note that the route numberfurnished by the petitioner in the complaint to the Police is only40-C whereas subsequently, the Police filed a charge sheet as ifthe bus bearing Registration No.TN 38 N 0565 was the one involvedin the accident. But in the charge sheet route number has not beenfurnished. Police have not correlated the route number. Perhapsaware of the fact that the registration number furnished in theFIR would not tally with a route number, the Police would havechosen to submit a charge sheet without correlating the routenumber with the registration number of the bus. Therefore, theCharge Sheet and the Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report will notlend any support to the appellant/petitioner's case regarding theidentity of the vehicle which caused the accident. 14.The next part of the evidence to be taken forconsideration is the testimony of P.W.3. P.W.3 has been examinedas a chance witness who allegedly travelled in the offendingvehicle at the time of accident. It is the case of the petitionerand that of the Police before the criminal Court that the vehiclewas not stopped at the accident spot and it proceeded furtherwithout even caring for the injured. However, P.W.3 was examinedas an eyewitness. He has not stated anything as to whether thevehicle was stopped at the place of accident or it simplyproceeded towards its destination. When a specific question wasput to him in the cross examination, he pleaded ignorance as towhether the bus bearing Route No.40-A was shown as the offendingvehicle in the petition. This Court is at a loss to understand howthe petitioner found out P.W.3 to be one of the passengers whotravelled in the bus at the time of accident. Admittedly, P.W.3did not depose before the Criminal Court. He was also not in aposition to state the unit to which the offending bus wasattached. He has also not produced the ticket to show he was oneof the passengers in the said bus. If at all he was so committedto see that the driver of the offending vehicle and the owner betaken to task in an action for compensation, he could have verywell asked the driver to stop the vehicle immediately after theaccident. Or else, he could have informed the Police afteralighting at the destination. Though he would have stated that heboarded the bus at a bus stop which is two bus stops away fromKuppusamy Naidu Hospital bus stop, he was not in able to statewhat was the name of the bus stop. The very vital discrepancy that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is found in the evidence of P.W.3 is that he would state that theother vehicle in which the petitioner was proceeding at the timeof accident was a Motorcycle whereas admittedly, it was a scooter. 15.All these aspects were clearly analysed by the Tribunalfor coming to the conclusion that the appellant/ petitioner whomet with an accident which took place due to his own negligence indriving the unregistered scooter without possessing valid drivinglicence and without knowing how to ride it, attempted to claimcompensation by fixing any one of the buses owned by the secondrespondent Transport Corporation and that that is why there hadbeen a lot of confusion over the route number and the registrationnumber of the bus involved in the accident. This Court, after anindependent evaluation and re-appreciation of evidence, also comesto the conclusion that the appellant/ petitioner has miserablyfailed to prove the connection between the alleged accident inwhich he sustained injuries and the bus bearing Registration No.TN38 N 0565 which was plied with Route No.41-D on the date of thealleged accident.16.For all these reasons stated above, this Court comes tothe conclusion that there is no defect or infirmity in the findingof the Tribunal recorded in this regard and there is no scope,whatsoever, to interfere with the same. There is no merit in theappeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.But taking a lenient view, this Court does not pass any order asto payment of costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarSgl https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Additional District Court,Fast Track Court No.3, Dharapuram.Copy toThe Section Officer,VR Section, High Court, Madras.+1cc to Mr.N.S.Sivakumar, Advocate Sr 35299VSV (CO)km/1.8.C.M.A.No.2200 of 2002